LEE CHAN KOK v 1. ) ATLANTA TERRACE (M) SDN BHD 2. ) M. PANGAJAM

ba-28pw-187-07-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 17 July 2025 • BA-28PW-187-07/2023

Catchwords

Termination of winding up order-contributory and former director of the company has expended RM8million to redeem charged lands to settle the purchasers’ claims- settlement agreement-liquidator not to proceed with liquidation-Liquidator breached the understanding by proceeding to sell the lands at undervalue and without the director’s consent-Director alleges forgery in the process of obtaining titles-director seeks for termination of winding up order and ancillary reliefs under section 486(2), 494 and 510 Companies Act 2016 (‘ÇA 2016’)-whether the applicant has met the threshold for terminating the winding up order-whether the alleged misconduct by the liquidator justifies judicial intervention under section 486(2)-whether the applicant has locus standi and/or procedural compliance to pursue relief against the liquidator-section 493-court may order the termination of a winding up where there is proof to the satisfaction of the court that all proceedings in relation to the winding up ought to be terminated-the legal burden lies squarely on the applicant to make a positive of sufficient case for termination-factors to be considered by court under section 493-whether debts of the company to its creditors have been satisfied-whether stakeholders agree to the termination-other facts the court considers appropriate-termination of a winding up order is not appropriate where debts are not fully settled-applicant fail to present concrete and credible evidence to show that company is viable and capable of operating as going concern-the liquidator opposed the termination-it is against public interest and against commercial morality to terminate a winding up without clarity that all creditors obligations have been met or that a legitimate and viable business continuation plan exists-applicant seeks relief under section 510 without obtaining leave from court-procedural defects-applicant’s complaints of misfeasance and forgery are inadequately supported- there is also unexplained delay in filing the application-applicant failed to demonstrate that PASB or ATSB are viable going concerns-the challenge of the Liquidator’s remuneration is misconceived-application is dismissed with costs.

Practice Areas

Termination of winding up order-contributory and former director of the company has expended RM8million to redeem charged lands to settle the purchasers’ claims- settlement agreement-liquidator not to proceed with liquidation-Liquidator breached the understanding by proceeding to sell the lands at undervalue and without the director’s consent-Director alleges forgery in the process of obtaining titles-director seeks for termination of winding up order and ancillary reliefs under section 486(2), 494 and 510 Companies Act 2016 (‘ÇA 2016’)-whether the applicant has met the threshold for terminating the winding up order-whether the alleged misconduct by the liquidator justifies judicial intervention under section 486(2)-whether the applicant has locus standi and/or procedural compliance to pursue relief against the liquidator-section 493-court may order the termination of a winding up where there is proof to the satisfaction of the court that all proceedings in relation to the winding up ought to be terminated-the legal burden lies squarely on the applicant to make a positive of sufficient case for termination-factors to be considered by court under section 493-whether debts of the company to its creditors have been satisfied-whether stakeholders agree to the termination-other facts the court considers appropriate-termination of a winding up order is not appropriate where debts are not fully settled-applicant fail to present concrete and credible evidence to show that company is viable and capable of operating as going concern-the liquidator opposed the termination-it is against public interest and against commercial morality to terminate a winding up without clarity that all creditors obligations have been met or that a legitimate and viable business continuation plan exists-applicant seeks relief under section 510 without obtaining leave from court-procedural defects-applicant’s complaints of misfeasance and forgery are inadequately supported- there is also unexplained delay in filing the application-applicant failed to demonstrate that PASB or ATSB are viable going concerns-the challenge of the Liquidator’s remuneration is misconceived-application is dismissed with costs.

Judges (1)

Raja Rozela binti Raja Toran Delivered

Parties (3)

ATLANTA TERRACE Sdn Bhd Respondent Lee Chan Kok Applicant M. Pangajam Respondent

Case Significance

LEE CHAN KOK v 1. ) ATLANTA TERRACE (M) SDN BHD 2. ) M. PANGAJAM is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated July 17, 2025 (citation: ba-28pw-187-07-2023). The case was decided by Raja Rozela binti Raja Toran.

What was the outcome of LEE CHAN KOK v 1. ) ATLANTA TERRACE (M) SDN BHD 2. ) M. PANGAJAM?

LEE CHAN KOK v 1. ) ATLANTA TERRACE (M) SDN BHD 2. ) M. PANGAJAM is a High Court decision dated July 17, 2025. The case was heard by Raja Rozela binti Raja Toran. See the full judgment for details.